Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/31/2023 has been considered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Form PTO-1449 is signed and attached hereto.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 5, 8, 12, 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawachiya et al. (U.S. Pub. 20210268389 A1) in view Tamas et al. (U.S. Pub. 20140214996 A1), and further in view of Hawilo et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10810642 B1).
As per claim 1, Kawachiya teaches the invention substantially as claimed including a metaverse server (FIG. 1, Metaverse system is configured with multiple clients […], a server [] 1) comprising:
processor is configured to: receive, from a client device associated with a metaverse user … (par. 0006 The method includes receiving, by the server computer, from one of the plurality of client computers an enquiry request; par. 0040 the users A to C participate as avatars A to C through the respective clients 3A to 3C, in Fig. 1).
Kawachiya does not expressly disclose: an edge node processor; and a remote node processor, wherein the edge node processor is configured to: receive, from a client device associated with a metaverse user, a request to perform a task comprising a first set of one or more operations that are executed by the edge node processor and a second set of one or more operations that need to be executed by the remote node processor; execute the first set of one or more operations; forward the second set of one or more operations to the remote node processor; and wherein the remote node processor is configured to: receive, from the edge node processor, the second set of one or more operations; execute each of the second set of one or more operations when conditions for executing the operation are satisfied; and send, upon completion of the second set of one or more operations, to the client device, a second notification indicating that the task has been completed.
However, Tamas teaches:
an edge node processor (Fig. 2A, First Border Server 200); and
a remote node processor (Fig. 2A Node server 220),
wherein the edge node processor is configured to: receive, from a client device associated with a … user, a request to perform a task comprising a first set of one or more operations that are executed by the edge node processor and a second set of one or more operations that need to be executed by the remote node processor (par. 0037 a border server 100 receives a transaction request from a requestor 104 via a distributed communication system; par. 0047 Control begins at 300, where the requestor 208 sends a transaction request to the first border server 200. It is noted, in Fig. 2A, First Border Server is equiv. to edge processor, and Node Servers 220-232 are equiv. to remote processors. Border server receives a transaction request from requestor 108 [client], the transaction comprises first operations to identify tasks and identify server nodes for the tasks, and second operations of processing the tasks at the remote node servers).
execute the first set of one or more operations (par. 0047 At 304, the first border server 200 begins processing the request and at 308 identifies that tasks A and D need to be performed based on the transaction request. At 312, the first border server 200 identifies node server 220 as the appropriate node server for performing task A and at 316, the first border server 200 sends a request for task A (number 2) to the node server 220 … [first operations]);
forward the second set of one or more operations to the remote node processor (par. 0047 At 312, the first border server 200 identifies node server 220 as the appropriate node server for performing task A and at 316, the first border server 200 sends [forwards] a request for task A (number 2) to the node server 220 …); and
wherein the remote node processor is configured to: receive, from the edge node processor, the second set of one or more operations; execute each of the second set of one or more operations when conditions for executing the operation are satisfied (par. 0048 At 328, the node server 220 begins processing the request for task A and at 332 identifies an additional task, task B, needed in order to finish task A … At 344, the node server 228 begins processing the task B request and at 348 determines that no additional tasks are needed); and
send, upon completion of the second set of one or more operations, to the client device, a second notification indicating that the task has been completed (par. 0050 At 392, the node server 220 responds to the first border server 200; par. 0051 At 416, the first border server 200 sends a transaction response (number 10) to the requestor 208).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the technique of processing a transaction request using a border server and by performing a plurality tasks using a plurality of node servers of Tamas with the system and method of Kawachiya resulting in a metaverse system and method which provides for processing client transaction requests using a border server and performing a plurality of task on a plurality of remote server nodes as in Tamas. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination for the purpose of collectively performing a plurality of types of tasks using the plurality of servers (par. 0016). Further it would provide for moving data {tasks] from a initial server to a second server to prevent over-utilization of the initial server (par. 0012).
Kawachiya and Tamas do not expressly describe: send, to the client device, a first notification indicating that the task is being performed.
However, Hawilo teaches: send, to the client device, a first notification indicating that the task is being performed (col. 26, lines 58-62 when the requested job is comprised of two or more discrete tasks, notifications may be provided as each task is being performed and/or completed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the technique of providing notification of jobs being performed of Hawala with the system and method of Kawachiya and Tamas resulting in a system and method in which a notification is provided to a user/client that a task is being performed as in Hawilo. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination for the purpose of providing the user updates to the status of a job (col. 26, lines 52-55).
As per claim 5, Tamas further teaches: wherein the second set of one or more operations comprises an operation involving an interaction with an external computing device (par. 0046 border server 200 communicates with a node server 220. Fig. 2A describe a First Border server sending task A to an external Node Server 220).
As per claim 8, it is a method having similar limitations as claim 1. Thus, claim 8 is rejected for the same rationale as applied to claim 1.
As per claim 12, it is a method having similar limitations as claim 5. Thus, claim 12 is rejected for the same rationale as applied to claim 5.
As per claim 15, it is a non-transitory computer-readable medium having similar limitations as claim 1. Thus, claim 15 is rejected for the same rationale as applied to claim 1. Tamas further teaches: a non-transitory computer-readable medium (par. 0101 memory may be a subset of the term computer-readable medium)
As per claim 19, it is a non-transitory computer-readable medium having similar limitations as claim 5. Thus, claim 19 is rejected for the same rationale as applied to claim 5.
Claims 2, 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawachiya in view of Tamas and Hawilo and further in view of Palmer et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7882538 B1).
As per claim 2, Kawachiya further teaches: metaverse user, a metaverse environment managed by metaverse server (par. 00039 an environment server 1B that provides a Metaverse environment for each avatar representing a corresponding user [metaverse user]). Kawachiya, Tamas and Hawilo do not expressly disclose: wherein the edge node processor is further configured to: receive, from the client device, a request of the metaverse user to log into a metaverse environment managed by the metaverse server; retrieve, from a database communicatively connected to the remote node processor, user information associated with the metaverse user to a cache communicatively connected to the edge node processor; authenticate the metaverse user based on the user information; and send, to the client device, a response indicating a successful authentication.
However, Palmer teaches: receive, from the client device, a request of the … user to log into a … environment managed by the … server; retrieve, from a database communicatively connected to the remote node processor, user information associated with the ... user to a cache communicatively connected to the edge node processor; authenticate the … user based on the user information; and send, to the client device, a response indicating a successful authentication (col. 51-55, When user 22A on endpoint device 20A attempts to use a protected network resource, agent 32A on endpoint device 20A may send authentication information about user 22A and health information about endpoint device 20A to local access module; col. 9, lines 12-20 If authentication engine 44 determines that authentication information cache 46 does not contain authentication information for user 22A, authentication engine 44 may request a current version of the authentication information for user 22A from access control server 14. If authentication engine 44 is able to retrieve authentication information in the endpoint security information for user 22A, authentication engine 44 may store the authentication information in authentication information cache 46; col. 9, lines 29-32 Authentication engine 44 then uses the cached authentication information and the authentication information from endpoint device 20A to authenticate user 22A, col. 9, lines 23-24 Authentication engine 44 then alerts control element 40 whether the authentication information from endpoint device 20A was successfully authenticated).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the technique authenticating the authentication information for a user of Palmer with the system and method of Kawachiya, Tamas and Hawilo resulting in a system and method which provides for authenticating a client/user requesting access to system/environment and providing a notification as in Palmer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination for the purpose of provide enhanced flexibility with respect to user access to network resources. (col. 8, lines 2-4).
As per claim 9, it is a method having similar limitations as claim 2. Thus, claim 9 is rejected for the same rationale as applied to claim 2.
As per claim 16, it is a non-transitory computer-readable medium having similar limitations as claim 2. Thus, claim 16 is rejected for the same rationale as applied to claim 2.
Claims 3, 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawachiya in view of Tamas, Hawilo and Palmer, and further in view of Yoon et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20150248350 A1).
As per claim 3, Kawachiya, Tamas, Hawilo and Palmer do onto expressly disclose: wherein the user information at the cache is updated in an eventually-consistent manner, in which a change to the user information at the database associated with the remote node processor is not immediately reflected to the user information at the cache but reflected when the edge node processor performs a cache synchronization.
However, Yoon teaches: wherein the user information at the cache is updated in an eventually-consistent manner, in which a change to the user information at the database associated with the remote node processor is not immediately reflected to the user information at the cache but reflected when the edge node processor performs a cache synchronization (par. 0002 method for managing caches in a cache distributed environment that is capable of minimizing the network and disk accesses and improving the network processing efficiency in a way of deploying a cache distribution state view that has the record of location information of the caches in different server nodes in a distributed environment in each node and updating information on cache data in the cache distribution state views in the respective server nodes through the synchronization of the cache distribution state views when the cache data is changed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the technique of synchronizing a cache of Yoon with the system and method of Kawachiya, Tamas, Hawilo and Palmer resulting in a system and method which provides for performing cache synchronization based on changes in user information in server nodes as in Yoon. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination for the purpose of providing a cache service based on the distributed environment, thereby ensuring an integrity of the location information of the caches (par. 0002).
As per claim 10, it is a method having similar limitations as claim 3. Thus, claim 10 is rejected for the same rationale as applied to claim 3.
As per claim 17, it is a non-transitory computer-readable medium having similar limitations as claim 3. Thus, claim 17 is rejected for the same rationale as applied to claim 3.
Claims 4, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawachiya in view of Tamas, Hawilo and Palmer, and further in view of Ito et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20210099448 A1).
As per claim 4, Kawachiya further teaches: metaverse user, a metaverse environment managed by metaverse server (par. 00039 an environment server 1B that provides a Metaverse environment for each avatar representing a corresponding user [metaverse user]). Kawachiya, Tamas, Hawilo and Palmer do not expressly disclose: wherein the first set of one or more operations comprises presenting at least a part of the user information at the cache to the metaverse user in the metaverse environment.
However, Ito teaches: wherein the first set of one or more operations comprises presenting at least a part of the user information at the cache to the … user in the … environment (par. 0050 the MFP 200C retrieves the user-specific information from the cache memory, as described in detail later with reference to FIG. 8. In one or more embodiments, each of the client devices 200 [user] may acquire the user-specific information from the cache).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the technique of acquiring user information from a cache of Ito with the system and method of Kawachiya, Tamas, Hawilo and Palmer resulting in a system and method which provides for clients/user acquiring user information from a cache as in Ito. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination for the purpose of effectively managing cache data to be saved in a client device and used for authentication (par. 0004).
As per claim 11, it is a method having similar limitations as claim 4. Thus, claim 11 is rejected for the same rationale as applied to claim 4.
As per claim 18, it is a non-transitory computer-readable medium having similar limitations as claim 4. Thus, claim 18 is rejected for the same rationale as applied to claim 4.
Claims 6, 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawachiya in view of Tamas and Hawilo, and further in view of Bloch et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8811417 B2).
As per claim 6, Kawachiya, Tamas and Hawilo do not expressly describe: storing a record associated with the operation to a waiting queue until the conditions for executing the operation are satisfied; determining that the conditions for executing the operation are satisfied; executing, in response to the determination, the operation; and removing the record associated with the operation from the waiting queue.
However, Bloch teaches: storing a record associated with the operation to a waiting queue until the conditions for executing the operation are satisfied; determining that the conditions for executing the operation are satisfied; executing, in response to the determination, the operation; and removing the record associated with the operation from the waiting queue (col. 10, lines 31-51 receive from the host processor via the host interface one or more cross-channel work requests, execute work queue entries from the multiple work queues; disable the execution of work queue entries in a first work queue from the multiple work queues until conditions required for execution of the work queue entries of the first work queue are met, responsive to the received one or more cross-channel work requests; and enable the execution of work queue entries in the first work queue, responsive to identifying a completion status of one or more second work queues such that the conditions required for execution of the work queue entries of the first work queue are met, wherein the circuitry is configured to place in the first work queue, responsive to the received one or more cross-channel work requests, a sequence of entries including a wait entry, followed by a calculation entry, which when executed performs a calculation on data received in the one or more second work queues, and to disable the execution of work queue entries in the first work queue when the wait entry is executed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the technique of queueing requests in work queues Bloch with the system and method of Kawachiya, Tamas and Hawilo resulting in a system and method which provides for queuing task/operations in a work queue until conditions are met as in Bloch. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination for the purpose allowing for better CPU performance in computational tasks. The performance improvement achieved by the disclosed techniques is also important when executing non-blocking collective operations (col. 4, lines 42-45).
As per claim 13, it is a method having similar limitations as claim 6. Thus, claim 13 is rejected for the same rationale as applied to claim 6.
As per claim 20, it is a non-transitory computer-readable medium having similar limitations as claim 6. Thus, claim 20 is rejected for the same rationale as applied to claim 6.
Claim 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawachiya in view of Tamas and Hawilo, and further in view of Fitzpatrick et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20240127851 A1).
As per claim 7, Tamas further teaches: a … additional edge node processors [second border server, Fig. 2B], wherein … the additional edge node processors is assigned to one or more … users; and a plurality of additional remote node processors, wherein each of the plurality of additional remote node processors is assigned to one or more … users (par. 00045 In FIG. 2A, a first border server 200 [first edge processor] and a second border server 204 [an additional edge processor] are both show … the first border server 200 and the second border server 204 may process different types of transaction requests and/or may include permissions that will only allow interaction with different sets of users; Fig. 2A depicts the second border server 204 as configured to communicate with node servers 220-232 [remote processors]; par. 0036 one server will perform the task with respect to a first group of users, and a second server will perform the task with respect to a second group of users). Kawachiya further teaches: active metaverse users (par. 0003 A Metaverse is a three-dimensional virtual world … such as a massively-multiplayer online role-playing game; Fig 1 and par. 0040 describe a platform of the Metaverse in which the [active users] users A to C participate as avatars A to C through the respective clients 3A to 3C,).
Kawachiya, Tamas and Hawilo do not expressly disclose plurality of additional edge node processors.
However, Fitzpatrick teaches: plurality of additional edge node processors (par. 0011 a plurality of edge recording devices; par. 0013 The system may further include … subset of edge devices).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the technique of using a plurality of additional edge device of Fitzpatrick with the system and method of Kawachiya, Tamas and Hawilo resulting in a metaverse system which provides a plurality of additional edge devices and a plurality additional remote devices as in Tamas. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination for the purpose of quickly and accurately [par. 0009] process audio recordings or tasks.
As per claim 14, it is a method having similar limitations as claim 7. Thus, claim 14 is rejected for the same rationale as applied to claim 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Willy W. Huaracha whose telephone number is (571)270-5510. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bradley Teets can be reached on (571) 272-3338. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WH/
Examiner, Art Unit 2195
/BRADLEY A TEETS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2197